Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #37541
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 21:01 -0800 |
| References | <d7191cec-d963-42c8-90ba-db6d1359ceeb@googlegroups.com> <mailman.923.1358979203.2939.python-list@python.org> <roy-3DE6E9.17475523012013@news.panix.com> <5100726B.2050300@tim.thechases.com> <mailman.939.1358995175.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| Subject | Re: Arent these snippets equivalent? |
| From | Coolgg <gauravj123@gmail.com> |
| Message-ID | <mailman.944.1359006419.2939.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:38:54 PM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 6:29 PM, Tim Chase wrote:
>
> > On 01/23/13 16:47, Roy Smith wrote:
>
> >> while getchar() as c:
>
> >> putchar(c)
>
> >>
>
> >> That would give people (including me) the use case they're after most of
>
> >> the time (call a function, assign the return value, and test it). It's
>
> >> way less klunky than:
>
> >>
>
> >> while True:
>
> >> c = getchar()
>
> >> if c:
>
> > # I presume you mean "if not c:" here.
>
> >> break
>
> >> putchar()
>
> >
>
> > I was a pretty strong advocate early in one of these long threads, and
>
> > for the simple cases, it's some attractive syntactic sugar. However, I
>
> > found that it quickly blossomed into a lot of really ugly edge cases
>
> > (multiple tests, multiple results, checking for "is None" vs. false'ness
>
> > or some other condition such as "< 0"). I found that it was pretty easy
>
> > to create a generator-wrapper for this:
>
> >
>
> > def getter(fn):
>
> > while True:
>
> > val = fn()
>
> > if not val: break
>
> > yield val
>
> >
>
> > # DB example
>
> > cursor = conn.cursor()
>
> > for row in getter(lambda: cursor.fetchmany()):
>
> > do_something(row)
>
> >
>
> > # your getchar example
>
> > for c in getter(getchar):
>
> > do_something_else(c)
>
> >
>
> > This allowed me to have both the readability and customized tests (and
>
> > the ability to return multiple values). It could be expanded with
>
> >
>
> > def getter(fn, is_at_end=lambda v: not v):
>
> > while True:
>
> > val = fn()
>
> > if is_at_end(val): break
>
> > yield val
>
> >
>
> > which would even allow you to do things like
>
> >
>
> > for line in getter(file("foo.txt"), lambda s: s.find("xxx") < 0):
>
> > print "This line has 'xxx' in it:"
>
> > print line
>
> >
>
> > and those felt a lot more pythonic than any of the proposals I saw on
>
> > the list.
>
>
>
> I agree. To me, the beauty of iterators and for loops is that they
>
> separate production of the items of a collection from the processing of
>
> the same items. The two processes are often quite independent, and
>
> separating them clearly allows us to mix and match. For instance, when
>
> summing numbers, the internal details of producing the numbers does not
>
> matter.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Terry Jan Reedy
Thanks for all the perspectives everyone. I was just curious about the functional equivalence and I got what I needed.
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Arent these snippets equivalent? Coolgg <gauravj123@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 13:56 -0800
Re: Arent these snippets equivalent? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2013-01-23 22:06 +0000
Re: Arent these snippets equivalent? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 09:13 +1100
Re: Arent these snippets equivalent? Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-01-23 17:47 -0500
Re: Arent these snippets equivalent? Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2013-01-23 17:29 -0600
Re: Arent these snippets equivalent? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 10:29 +1100
Re: Arent these snippets equivalent? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-01-23 21:38 -0500
Re: Arent these snippets equivalent? Coolgg <gauravj123@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:01 -0800
Re: Arent these snippets equivalent? Coolgg <gauravj123@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:01 -0800
Re: Arent these snippets equivalent? Evan Driscoll <driscoll@cs.wisc.edu> - 2013-01-23 17:17 -0600
csiph-web